Strict Liability in Criminal Law

The constituents of an offence in criminal law is often divided into two part namely actus reus and mens rea. The generally accepted sense in which these terms are used is that actus reus refers to the outward circumstances of an offence and mens rea denotes the mental state of the offender. It is generally true to say that to convict a person (D), the prosecution (P) has to prove both actus reus and mens rea. But in some uncommon situations, the common law didn’t require mens rea - for example, negligent man slaughter is not an offence requiring mens rea, which means, mens rea need not be proven. So, in the modern times a doctrine has developed in certain classes of statutory offences, where a person can be convicted on proof of actus reus only. This has come to be called “strict liability” and the offence is known as ‘Regulatory offences’ or “Public welfare offences” or “Pubic Torts” or “Quasi crimes” etc. The last or the third category of offence is the offence of absolute liability i.e. liability without fault. In Sault Ste. Marie, the strict liability category, was described as a “half way house” between the mens rea and the absolute liability category. Five people have six opinions on strict liability! Supporters of this doctrine regarded it as necessary evil while their opponents agreed about the evil nature but not the necessity part.